The expression “burden of proof” really means two different things. It means sometimes that a party is required to prove an allegation before judgment can be given in, its favour ; it also means that on a contested issue one of the two contending parties has to introduce evidence. The burden of proof is of importance only where by reason of not discharging the burden which was put upon it, a party must eventually fail. There is an essential distinction between “burden of proof” and “onus of proof”. Burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. (See Addagada Raghavamma and Another Vs. Addagada Chenchamma and Another, ). In view of the above position in law conclusions in Lovely Thomas’ case  113 STC 505 (Ker), are not acceptable.